[Waragainstsleep]

I'm paraphrasing.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

His insecurity, ego and utter lack of taste are more of a worry. I think he was even quoted a few years back as saying that he would run as a Republican because of how easy it is to manipulate their base.

Snopes = false, but this actually made the rounds quite well for such a false meme. It was said to be quoted in a big magazine and then parroted by even bigger names. Showing the level many of our liberals will go to lie & slander their way into power.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

If Hillary Clinton were elected President, her powers would be checked by Congress which is currently controlled by the Republicans. The US Presidency is not a 4-year dictatorship.

See this is an example of how yall want us to think sensibly only about Hillary criticisms. Meanwhile the same people believe Trump has the keys to the nukes which he'll certainly launch on a whim.

Judging by how Republican Congressional leadership has grappled with Trump's candidacy, I'm certain that they'd be much less effective at reigning him in than with what they'd do to Clinton.

In part their effectiveness rots right now because they're treading lightly to win the election. They dont know what to do now that their classic political marketing tactics aren't working with their constituents. I think their effectiveness will be slightly better if he's elected. Although Im now thinking about how Bush single handily blotched Iraq. At the end of the day though, if I have to pick who's going to oppress me, I'd rather have an idiot in office, than a well connected elite criminal master mind, and thats what HIllary is.

On guns... She has said she wants to ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Gun folks probably dont mind losing high cap magazines much - but assault weapons like the AR are America's favorite rifle due to the fact that they're so customization and upgradable.

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Snopes = false, but this actually made the rounds quite well for such a false meme. It was said to be quoted in a big magazine and then parroted by even bigger names. Showing the level many of our liberals will go to lie & slander their way into power.

Which big names parroted it?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

See this is an example of how yall want us to think sensibly only about Hillary criticisms. Meanwhile the same people believe Trump has the keys to the nukes which he'll certainly launch on a whim.

I wouldn't say he'd launch nukes on a whim, but if reports are to be believed, Trump is still grappling with deterrence doctrine. What is underlying your question, though, is if it is justified to put Clinton and Trump in two different categories, namely Trump is in the category “unelectable catastrophe” and Clinton is in the category “regular (perhaps bad) politician”. I think that's an apt characterization.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

In part their effectiveness rots right now because they're treading lightly to win the election. They dont know what to do now that their classic political marketing tactics aren't working with their constituents. I think their effectiveness will be slightly better if he's elected.

Seeing how they behave, I wouldn't count on it. Or rather: I wouldn't want to risk that.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Although Im now thinking about how Bush single handily blotched Iraq. At the end of the day though, if I have to pick who's going to oppress me, I'd rather have an idiot in office, than a well connected elite criminal master mind, and thats what HIllary is.

I think you're making a mistake by thinking that Trump is an idiot, in his own way Trump is extremely smart and runs circles around other politicians (as you have seen during the Republican primary where 16 people were playing checkers and Trump was playing publicity chess). His media and publicity savviness contrasts quite sharply to his seat-of-the-pants-type of way to make comments and seemingly also policy decisions. I believe a Trump Presidency could cause catastrophic, irreparable damage that'd last decades. Hillary Clinton has no intention of making fundamental changes to international diplomatic relations, nuclear doctrines and some such.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

The propensity for the specifics of campaign promises being broken is yet another reason why people are willing to overlook the lack of substantive proposals.

The difference with Trump is that even during the campaign he isn't consistent.

Originally Posted by subego 

Forgive my incredulity, but are we seriously arguing over whether Hillary Clinton is going to be better on the Second Amendment? Of all the policies Trump proposes, Second Amemdment support isn't based on his actions but that of the Supreme Court.

Yes, we are, by way of questioning how seriously Trump takes his own statements.

Originally Posted by subego 

He's going to be more responsible for fiscal policy, hence the qualifier I put with my claims he would better serve a republican voter in this regard.

How is he standing for a more responsible fiscal policy. Just claiming that he is because he is the Republican candidate is not an argument.

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't count his appearances on scripted television to be an indicator of something useful. Where are the examples from before he was running of him lacking self-control?

How many examples would you like? The first that comes to mind is the “small hands” meme which has its roots in a 1988 piece in Spy Magazine:

Originally Posted by Graydon Carter

To this day, I receive the occasional envelope from Trump. There is always a photo of him—generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers. I almost feel sorry for the poor fellow because, to me, the fingers still look abnormally stubby. The most recent offering arrived earlier this year, before his decision to go after the Republican presidential nomination.

So even after 25 years he still hasn't gotten over it.

Originally Posted by subego 

As OreoCookie mentioned, we've got 70+ years of data on the guy. What are the probabilities Donald Trump could keep being a racist under wraps this whole time?

Paco provided the master list of racism they've dug up on him. In the anecdote section they come up with, like, two examples. If Donald was actually racist they'd have to pick the juiciest 10 anecdotes from a pool of several hundred.

I will also stand firm his Mexico policy was wildly distorted from day one. His statements were accurate. Saying Mexico doesn't send its "best" people is an obnoxiously classist way to put it, but we don't exactly consider the rolls of American unskilled laborers "our best people" either.

The “criminal and rapists” comment wasn't the only one, he retweeted an antisemitic image that was initially posted by white supremacists, accused a judge of not being able to do his job because of his “Mexican heritage” and insinuated that female interviewers were asking inappropriate questions because they were on their period. Ok, the last one isn't racist, it's misogynistic.

[Waragainstsleep]

You might say an inclination to write your name on everything you do in massive gold letters was as much a lack of self control as it is a lack of taste.

[BadKosh]

Its called advertising.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The difference with Trump is that even during the campaign he isn't consistent.

Yes, we are, by way of questioning how seriously Trump takes his own statements.

How is he standing for a more responsible fiscal policy. Just claiming that he is because he is the Republican candidate is not an argument.

How many examples would you like? The first that comes to mind is the “small hands” meme which has its roots in a 1988 piece in Spy Magazine:

So even after 25 years he still hasn't gotten over it.

The “criminal and rapists” comment wasn't the only one, he retweeted an antisemitic image that was initially posted by white supremacists, accused a judge of not being able to do his job because of his “Mexican heritage” and insinuated that female interviewers were asking inappropriate questions because they were on their period. Ok, the last one isn't racist, it's misogynistic.

My statement on his economic policy isn't that he'll be more responsible than Hillary, it's that as an executive he'll be more responsible for the economy than for the Second Amendment, which will be the purview of his Supreme Court appointments.

Is the argument Trump is so inconsistent he could intentionally make Supreme Court appointments to the left of Hillary's?


Is there a reason the editor of Spy chose not to provide any photographic evidence to back up his claim?


Saying "this person of Mexican heritage doesn't like me because of my immigration policy, and therefore cannot judge me fairly" isn't racist.

I know about the Star of David. I started a thread on it because it was so completely out-there. Let's Occam's razor it. Where's all the other evidence of him being an anti-Semite? He kept it secret for years planning for the moment he could dog whistle it in a tweet... or it could be his campaign would be better managed by a doorknob.

I know which one I have more evidence for.

As for Megyn Kelly, I never argued the guy isn't a pig.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You might say an inclination to write your name on everything you do in massive gold letters was as much a lack of self control as it is a lack of taste.

This would depend on how much value one receives from self-aggrandizement.

[subego]

Some of these are a just little too on-point.



https://www.reddit.com/r/DonaldandHobbes/

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Its called advertising.

For what? You don't call up Trump up and ask him to come build you stuff.

[BadKosh]

No, but when HE builds stuff he puts his name on it so you know.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

For what?

Hotels, restaurants, and golf courses.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is there a reason the editor of Spy chose not to provide any photographic evidence to back up his claim?

Why does that matter? The fact is that Trump has held a grudge about a disparaging comment for over 25 years. That's petty and a sign of a weak character.

Originally Posted by subego 

I know about the Star of David. I started a thread on it because it was so completely out-there. Let's Occam's razor it. Where's all the other evidence of him being an anti-Semite?

Well, he retweeted the picture, and when people criticized him for it, had the star of David replaced by a circle and tweeted it again. Instead of figuring out that it was first posted by white supremacists and apologizing. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is Jewish: would you be offended?

Overall, I think you're trying to emphasize the distinction between “saying something that is racist, anti-semitic or misogynistic” and “being a racist, anti-semite or misogynist”. That's a distinction without a difference.

[The Final Dakar]

At what point is indifference just being complicit? In a world where racism and antisemitism exist, Trumps cavalier attitude towards both becomes part of the problem; By contributing to them he becomes racist himself.

[The Final Dakar]

Starting to see liberals thinking the current electoral math as a future likelihood when the reality is Trump is singularly bad and this year will be indicative of very little in the future. The best liberals can hope for is those voters that were driven to register because of Trump stay active.

And speaking of voter turnout this year will probably be a historic low, right? I expect turnout on the right to be very depressed.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

At what point is indifference just being complicit? In a world where racism and antisemitism exist, Trumps cavalier attitude towards both becomes part of the problem; By contributing to them he becomes racist himself.

This is an excellent question, which I am formulating an answer to.

Didn't want you to think I was giving it the brush-off.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

And speaking of voter turnout this year will probably be a historic low, right? I expect turnout on the right to be very depressed.

They don't care, at all. Apathy is at an all-time high and unless something drastically changes we'll likely see a turnout of <33%, and that's the worst thing that could possibly happen.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

At what point is indifference just being complicit? In a world where racism and antisemitism exist, Trumps cavalier attitude towards both becomes part of the problem; By contributing to them he becomes racist himself.

This doesn't directly address your question, but speaks to why I take issue with the label.

Essentially, calling him a racist is the atomic bomb of ad hominem. The only things I can think of to call him which are worse are criminal (pedophile, rapist, murderer). This bomb gets dropped, there's nothing left to discuss, only wasteland.

That's not to say there is no place for an ad hominem, and/or the shutting down of discussion. I've said, and will repeat, he's a whiny, petulant, man-child. There's not much room for further discussion.

The distinction is I can make a direct argument for this, not one where the label applies by virtue of indifference.

And as I've complained about, the racist nuke got dropped on him the first day of his campaign. This was far to early, and has only served to get people who would be convinced of it to do the real-life equivalent of hitting the "ignore" button.

Does that make any sense?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

And as I've complained about, the racist nuke got dropped on him the first day of his campaign. This was far to early, and has only served to get people who would be convinced of it to do the real-life equivalent of hitting the "ignore" button.

Does that make any sense?

Not really: We are not at the beginning of the campaign anymore. While it might have been too early to call him a “racist” back then, he has earned these labels. Hence, it is not an ad hominem attack to call him out on his behavior. (Although I would say “what Trump said is racist/anti-semitic/misogynistic” rather than that “Trump is a racist/anti-semite/misogynist”.)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

At what point is indifference just being complicit? In a world where racism and antisemitism exist, Trumps cavalier attitude towards both becomes part of the problem; By contributing to them he becomes racist himself.

I don't think it's just cavalier attitude, he's actively pandering IMHO. And a statistical analysis shows that the more inflammatory tweets are really his.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

(Although I would say “what Trump said is racist/anti-semitic/misogynistic” rather than that “Trump is a racist/anti-semite/misogynist”.)

Why would you say that? You argued there's no difference.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Why does that matter? The fact is that Trump has held a grudge about a disparaging comment for over 25 years. That's petty and a sign of a weak character.

Facts come with corroborating evidence.

Back in the day, Spy didn't just say Arnold Schwarzenegger has a small penis, they printed a picture of it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why would you say that? You argued there's no difference.

I prefer to use this formulation, because it is more precise, although some people will call him a racist, for example. And I read your statements as “just because he has retweeted an anti-semitic picture, doesn't mean he is an anti-semite”, but I don't think arguing this difference is really significant here. Trump is constantly saying inflammatory things, some of which are racist, some of which are anti-semitic, others are just mind-boggling (like Trump's “sarcastic” statement that Obama was the founder of ISIS).

Originally Posted by subego 

Facts come with corroborating evidence.

Back in the day, Spy didn't just say Arnold Schwarzenegger has a small penis, they printed a picture of it.

The veracity of this comment from a 1988 story is not the point, plenty of people who are in the public eye have had disparaging comments (many of them false) written about them. What matters is Trump's reaction, and that he hasn't given this a rest after 25 years.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The veracity of this comment from a 1988 story is not the point, plenty of people who are in the public eye have had disparaging comments (many of them false) written about them. What matters is Trump's reaction, and that he hasn't given this a rest after 25 years.

Trump's reaction is hearsay.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Trump's reaction is hearsay.

No, his reaction is on video. (Rubio's referenced that meme in the debates.)

[subego]

Rubio mentions it to his face in a national debate, and that he responds is an indicator he hasn't dropped it?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

At what point is indifference just being complicit? In a world where racism and antisemitism exist, Trumps cavalier attitude towards both becomes part of the problem; By contributing to them he becomes racist himself.

How many levels of inception can we go on this? Does my (relative) indifference to calling Trump a racist make me a racist?

Honest question... and while I may disagree, I won't jump anyone's shit for thinking "yes".

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Rubio mentions it to his face in a national debate, and that he responds is an indicator he hasn't dropped it?

That and the stories by others (the story I chose to link to is from 2011). It's clearly a touchy subject for Trump, and we don't have to satisfy any legal level of proof for the purpose of the discussion here.

[subego]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point.

What was notable about the accusation from the Spy editor was Trump randomly sending him unsolicited letters attempting to prove his hands are big.

A compulsion to do this would indeed be an example of not letting go.

Replying to people who bring it up is not an example of this.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

How many levels of inception can we go on this? Does my (relative) indifference to calling Trump a racist make me a racist?

Honest question... and while I may disagree, I won't jump anyone's shit for thinking "yes".

The term that comes to mind is apologist.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The term that comes to mind is apologist.

The thing is, I'm diametrically opposed to every policy of his I can think of. It would be a lot easier on me if I could dismiss him or his policies just by saying "racist".

Attacking him from another direction seems like poor apologism.

[The Final Dakar]

It's the "He doesn't really mean it" defense that makes the term come to mind

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's the "He doesn't really mean it" defense that makes the term come to mind

I'd say that applies most specifically to the Star of David tweet.

I honestly don't think the anti-Semitism in it even registered with him until it was too late. If thinking that makes me an apologist then I must accept the label.

[subego]

Gary Kasparov suggested one of the extreme vetting questions should be "Have you received any suitcases of cash from Moscow lately?"

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'd say that applies most specifically to the Star of David tweet.

I honestly don't think the anti-Semitism in it even registered with him until it was too late. If thinking that makes me an apologist then I must accept the label.

That felt like the gist of your Curiel response.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That felt like the gist of your Curiel response.

If Trump is saying "people of Mexican heritage are incapable of judging me fairly", then that's racist.

If Trump is saying "this particular person is letting their Mexican heritage interfere with their fair judgement", it's a good deal murkier.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

If Trump is saying "people of Mexican heritage are incapable of judging me fairly", then that's racist.

If Trump is saying "this particular person is letting their Mexican heritage interfere with their fair judgement", it's a good deal murkier.

The problem with Trump is that he has no basis upon which to say the latter. So the implication is that what he really means is the former.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

If Trump is saying "people of Mexican heritage are incapable of judging me fairly", then that's racist.

If Trump is saying "this particular person is letting their Mexican heritage interfere with their fair judgement", it's a good deal murkier.

I think I nailed down why this argument doesn't fly with me. The second statement is nuanced. Trump has no nuance.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The problem with Trump is that he has no basis upon which to say the latter. So the implication is that what he really means is the former.

OAW

Ego and narcissism are the basis upon which the latter was said.

Which is about what I'd expect.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think I nailed down why this argument doesn't fly with me. The second statement is nuanced. Trump has no nuance.

I think how much benefit of the doubt he should be given is an arguable type of thing.

My own inclination to give him that benefit is certainly being taxed to the limit.

I do want to note I think the Trump we have now is a different Trump than the one who entered the campaign. He's a rock star now, and is incredibly sensitive to the whims of his groupies.

Ironically, I'd say the pre-campaign Trump was more his own man.

[OAW]

Trump is polling at 0-1% of the black vote in key battleground states. So he decided to go to a lily-white town in Michigan to do some "outreach" to black voters.

Donald Trump on Friday continued his outreach to African-American voters, presenting them with a stark question: "What the hell do you have to lose?"

Speaking in Dimondale, Michigan, Trump lamented the collapse of American manufacturing and criticized free trade deals as he laced into Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, saying they are taking black voters for granted.

"You're living in poverty, your schools are no good, 58% of your youth are unemployed -- what the hell do you have to lose?" Trump asked the audience in an unscripted moment from a speech in which he otherwise stuck to his teleprompter.

He accused Clinton of wanting to give jobs to refugees rather than unemployed African-Americans in the US, saying they have "become refugees in their own country."

Trump -- speaking to an overwhelmingly white audience that featured only a smattering of African-Americans and other minorities -- also promised that were he to run for re-election at the end of his first term, he would win 95% of the black vote.

Such support would be a tall order for Trump -- a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows Clinton beating Trump 91%-1% among African-Americans.

Donald Trump pitches black voters: 'What the hell do you have to lose?' - CNNPolitics.com

Let's see. I'm just waiting on someone to ask working class white people living in red states why they keep voting for the GOP.



OAW

[subego]

The current narrative would have it that the Republican establishment only pays lip-service to the parts of the platform which appeal to poor voters.

Whereas Trump is making those parts his entire platform.

At least short-term, if he were to follow through with trade protectionism and closing the borders, I'd be hard pressed to say that wouldn't help poor people. White and black.

Though I support the opposite positions, honesty forces me to admit taken as is, they hang a bunch of the working class out to dry.

If it were up to me, I'd consider it my duty to wonk something up which addresses the problem, but it's not like I can make a direct sale with my policy the way Trump can.


As an aside, I think I did a good job not getting grumpy about how broken that meme is.

[OAW]

But the meme is true. Check it out for yourself.

Are 97 of the nation's 100 poorest counties in red states? | PolitiFact

OAW

[subego]

That's only half the meme.

The statistic is provided in support of the rhetorical question. The conclusion implied by the question is not one which can be drawn from the statistic.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But the meme is true. Check it out for yourself.

Are 97 of the nation's 100 poorest counties in red states? | PolitiFact

No, it isn't. Actually read their analysis.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

No, it isn't. Actually read their analysis.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

Our ruling

The meme said that "97 percent of the 100 poorest counties in America are in red states." According to the most recent data, that’s a few percentage points high, but not by much.

However, measuring a county’s lack of affluence this way skews the map of poorest places toward rural states (which tend to be red) and away from big cities (which tend to be blue). This undercuts the simplicity of the meme’s political message.

The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.

OAW

[besson3c]

It is quite the scam to have convinced so many Americans that Republican policies serve their best interests.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's only half the meme.

The statistic is provided in support of the rhetorical question. The conclusion implied by the question is not one which can be drawn from the statistic.

Hence my point in posting it! That is PRECISELY what Trump is doing with his so-called "outreach" to the black electorate. Perhaps my sarcasm wasn't as clear as I thought it was?

OAW